IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH VATAP No.84 of 2010 (O&M)

Reserved on: 07.01.2025 Pronounced on: January 28, 2025 Shree Shiva Steels ......Appellant Vs.

The State of Punjab and another ......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN PALLI HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA Present: Ms. Aakriti, Advocate for Mr. Sandeep Goyal, Advocate for the appellant.

Mr. Saurabh Kapoor, Additional Advocate General, Punjab.

----

S UDEEPTI SHARMA J.

The present appeal under Section 68(2) of the Punjab Value Added Tax Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) is preferred against the order dated 30.07.2010 passed by Ld. VAT Tribunal, Punjab, whereby the penalty order dated 27.08.2009 passed by Assistant Excise and Commissioner (Mobile Wing), Bathinda to the tune of Rs.2,12,310/- under Section 51(7) (c) of the Punjab VAT Act, 2005, is upheld.

2. The following questions of law have been claimed in the present appeal:-

(i) Whether on facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. Tribunal was justified in upholding the penalty imposed by AETC?

(ii) Whether the appellant could have attempted to evade the tax under the Punjab VAT Act by not submitting the bills at ICC despite the fact that the details of bills are duly mentioned in the Statutory Form of Rajasthan (VAT 47) and was produced at the time of generation of information for other transactions?

(iii) Whether the ETO (Mobile Wing) has the jurisdiction to check and detain the vehicles at the ICC premises itself even though officers of ICC have the jurisdiction to do so within their premises?

(iv) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the ETO (Mobile Wing) can check and detain the vehicles, when the vehicles were at ICC premises and ICC staff could have corrected the information if there were any defects in the documents?

3. Brief facts of the case as narrated in the appeal are that on 19.08.2009, the goods i.e. Iron Goods being transported in the vehicles No. RG- 13G-4274 & RJ-13G-8182 were detained by the Excise and Taxation Officer (MW), Bathinda for verification on the grounds that the goods in transit were in excess by weight as detected after weighment and requisite information in respect of the excess goods was not furnished at any Information Collecton Centre (for short ‘ICC’). The documents accompanying the goods were GRs No. 1434 and 1435 dated 19.08.2009. Trip Sheet of Punjab Goods Transport Company, Mandi Gobindgarh and three VAT XXXVI forms, Invoices No. 1287 and 2448 and 2456 dated 19.08.2009 for Rs. 32,798/-, Rs. 33,130/-, Rs. 89,025/- and Rs. 73,400/-, respectively and four forms VAT XXXVI and Forms VAT 47. Statements of the drivers were recorded and a notice was issued to the owner of the goods.

4. Sh. Neeraj Kumar stated to be Manager of the firm M/s Shree Shiva Steels, Mandi Gobindgarh, appeared before the Detaining Officer and claimed ownership of the goods loaded excess in both the vehicles. He was confronted with the facts of the case. He produced FR No. 980 and 981 alongwith retail invoices 39 and 40 dated 19.08.2009 issued by M/s Shree Shiva Steels, Mandi Gobindgarh for Rs. 1,58,781/- and Rs. 2,65,481/- in favour of M/s Raghav Trading Company, Sri Ganganagar. He explained that the goods which were detected in excess were covered by these documents which were given to the drivers but the TIN of the consignor firm was blocked so the driver could not generate the information in respect of these goods. He did not produce any account books. He furnished cash security of Rs. 53,100/- and bank guarantee for Rs. 1,59,253/- and requested for release of the goods, the goods were accordingly released. The Detaining Officer observed that the excess goods worth Rs. 4,24,622/- were being transported without documents and requisite information was knowingly not furnished to any ICC. The case was forwarded to the AETC (MW), Bathinda, for imposing penalty u/s 51(7)(c) of the Act.

5. After inquiry, the AETC (MW), Bathinda, imposed a penalty of Rs. 2,12,310/